| Literature DB >> 32718017 |
Malén Massot-Cladera1,2, Ignasi Azagra-Boronat1,2, Àngels Franch1,2, Margarida Castell1,2, Maria J Rodríguez-Lagunas1,2, Francisco J Pérez-Cano1,2.
Abstract
The study's objective was to ascertain whether a nutritional multivitamin and mineral supplement enriched with two different dietary fibers influences microbiota composition, mineral absorption, and some immune and metabolic biomarkers in adult rats. Nine-week-old Wistar rats were randomly assigned into four groups: the reference group; the group receiving a daily supplement based on a food matrix with proteins, vitamins, and minerals; and two other groups receiving this supplement enriched with inulin (V + I) or acacia (V + A) fiber for four weeks. Microbiota composition was determined in cecal content and mineral content in fecal, blood, and femur samples. Intestinal IgA concentration, hematological, and biochemical variables were evaluated. Both V + I and V + A supplementations increased Firmicutes and Actinobacteria phyla, which were associated with a higher presence of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium spp. V + A supplementation increased calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc concentrations in femur. V + I supplementation increased the fecal IgA content and reduced plasma total cholesterol and uric acid concentration. Both fiber-enriched supplements tested herein seem to be beneficial to gut-health, although differently.Entities:
Keywords: IgA; acacia fiber; immune system; inulin fiber; microbiota; mineral absorption
Year: 2020 PMID: 32718017 PMCID: PMC7468733 DOI: 10.3390/nu12082196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Mineral concentration (mg/g) in blood, feces, femur, and urine samples at the end of the study for all experimental groups considering both sexes together.
| [Ca] | [Fe] | [Mg] | [P] | [Zn] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg/g) | (mg/g) | (mg/g) | (mg/g) | (mg/g) | ||
| Blood |
| 60.11 ± 2.51 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 34.36 ± 1.10 | 0.37 ± 0.01 | 0.005 ± 0.000 |
|
| 63.45 ± 2.20 | 0.44 ± 0.01 | 32.28 ± 0.76 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 0.005 ± 0.000 | |
|
| 57.21 ± 3.16 β | 0.44 ± 0.00 | 31.80 ± 0.68 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.005 ± 0.000 | |
|
| 59.53 ± 4.24 β | 0.44 ± 0.01 | 31.73 ± 0.36 *β | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.005 ± 0.000 | |
| Feces |
| 19.35 ± 1.43 | 0.41 ± 0.03 | 3.70 ± 0.14 | 12.39 ± 0.61 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
|
| 18.55 ± 1.21 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 3.67 ± 0.15 | 12.02 ± 0.51 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 18.16 ± 1.36 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 3.57 ± 0.04 | 12.13 ± 0.59 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | |
|
| 19.96 ± 1.04 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 3.87 ± 0.13 | 13.20 ± 0.50 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | |
| Femur |
| 140.60 ± 6.33 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 3.00 ± 0.13 | 66.95 ± 2.93 | 0.15 ± 0.01 |
|
| 126.03 ± 8.05 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 2.71 ± 0.15 | 61.61 ± 3.40 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | |
|
| 120.05 ± 6.73 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 2.60 ± 0.16 | 58.93 ± 2.90 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | |
|
| 157.90 ± 4.77 βε | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 3.45 ± 0.10 βε | 76.87 ± 2.33 βε | 0.16 ± 0.00 βε | |
| Urine |
| 0.08 ± 0.03 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.001 ± 0.000 |
|
| 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.001 ± 0.000 | 0.30 ± 0.08 | 0.13 ± 0.11 | 0.003 ± 0.003 | |
|
| 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | |
|
| 0.17 ± 0.07 | 0.001 ± 0.000 | 0.33 ± 0.10 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.001 ± 0.001 |
Results are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10/group). Calcium and magnesium blood concentrations are expressed as the mean ± SEM of mg of each mineral × 10−3/g of sample. REEF: animals no receiving supplement; V: animals receiving a daily supplement based on a food matrix with proteins, vitamins and minerals; V + I: inulin-enriched supplement-fed animals, and V + A: acacia-enriched supplement-fed animals.* p < 0.05 vs. REF group; β p < 0.05 vs. V group; ε p < 0.05 vs. V + I group. Ca: calcium; Fe: iron; Mg: magnesium; P: phosphorus; Zn: zinc.
Figure 1(a) Total cholesterol; (b) high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C); (c) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C); (d) triglycerides (TG); (e) glucose; and (f) uric acid concentration in blood samples at the end of the study for all experimental groups considering both sexes together. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10/group). Statistical significance: * p < 0.05 vs. REF group; β p < 0.05 vs. V group; ε p < 0.05 vs. V + I group.
Figure 2(a) IgA concentration in gut wash (GW) and (b) fecal samples, (c) proportion of fecal IgA-coating bacteria and (d) plasma IgA concentration quantified at the end of the study for all experimental groups considering both sexes together. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10/group). Statistical significance: * p < 0.05 vs. REF group; β p < 0.05 vs. V group.
Figure 3Main taxonomic ranks showing the proportion of bacterial populations in the cecal content at the end of the study in males and females. The relative proportion of the bacteria was calculated in each taxonomic rank: (a) phylum, (b) family, and (c) genus. Results are expressed as mean (n = 5 female or male/group). Significant differences not shown.
Figure 4The relative proportion of the (a) Bifidobacterium and (b) Lactobacillus genera in cecal content at the end of the study differentiating between sexes. Results are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 10/group). Statistical significance: * p < 0.05 vs. REF group; β p < 0.05 vs. V group. (c) A representation of Venn diagrams showing the diversity in all genera differentiating between sexes. Results derived from n = 10/group.
Figure 5(a) Representation of Principal Components Analysis (PCA) for all experimental groups in a score plot and (b) a loading plot. Results derived from n = 10/group.